• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Why is spiritual knowledge seen as less correct then knowledge from science?

mikkel_the_dane

My own religion
Why would we accept certain religious beliefs (in the past) when we had so little knowledge of so many other things? It would seem to me that people in such times were just as accepting of nonsense as they were of any truths, probably a lot more so, such that this is the reason why religious beliefs prospered but the actuality of living - with all the lack of knowledge then, over virtually everything else - didn't progress at all (relatively speaking). Why expect any religious belief to have truths when related to such?

Because religion is not just of the past. There are modern versions of religion. It is like arguing that old versions of scientific knowledge, which are replaced by newer ones, means that science is incorrect as such.
Religion and science are human behaviors and they both evolve/change over time.
 

Mock Turtle

Oh my, did I say that!
Premium Member
Because religion is not just of the past. There are modern versions of religion. It is like arguing that old versions of scientific knowledge, which are replaced by newer ones, means that science is incorrect as such.
Religion and science are human behaviors and they both evolve/change over time.

But religions had their origins and followed their course. Why? Perhaps because we are lousy at determining the truth - after all, we managed to do so in so many other areas and for just as long - so why exempt religious beliefs? As the OP seems to want.
 

mikkel_the_dane

My own religion
But religions had their origins and followed their course. Why? Perhaps because we are lousy at determining the truth - after all, we managed to do so in so many other areas and for just as long - so why exempt religious beliefs? As the OP seems to want.

Well, it depends. I don't think we should exempt any beliefs, including religious beliefs and beliefs about truth. But you might not want that because truth is also a belief system.
So in practice learn to differentiate between objective truth, intersubjective truth and subjective truth and don't exempt any of them.
And that includes both that the world is physical or form God. Because neither are objectively true.

Philosophical materialism is around 2000 years old. Don't you think it is about time that we looked at that?
 

Polymath257

Think & Care
Staff member
Premium Member
The length of time an idea or system of beliefs has been around is no guide to the correctness of the idea or system.

For example, take the 'four humors' view of medicine and disease. It was around for thousands of years and extensively used. But it was simply wrong. It was based on some observations that were made long before we had techniques or instruments for more valid results. And once those techniques and instruments were invented, that theory went away.

I could also point to the 'four elements' idea of the composition of matter, the geocentric universe, alchemy, astrology and other ancient ideas that are known to simply be wrong today, yet were accepted for thousands of years.

More specifically, in regards to the ideas relating to spirituality, the concept is that these ideas were the result of speculation and observation done at a rather primitive state of knowledge and are *less* likely to be correct because of that. When more detailed observations have been made, many of the things promoted by 'spiritual' reasoning have found to be wanting or simply wrong.

Another aspect is that the scientific outlook searches for *objective* statements and subjects them to testing to sure they work, actually attempting to prove the ideas *wrong* and seeing what is left over. The goal is to eliminate falsehoods.

On the other side, spiritual paths tend to emphasize 'faith', which is a subjective thing and varies from individual to individual. Challenging the faith by trying to show it is wrong is strongly discouraged.

But what we KNOW is that humans and human intuition are very, very poor at finding general truths. We make mistakes. We adhere to ideas that comfort us. We get egos involved. And that means that any ideas *need* to be challenged in a way that is precisely counter to the concept of faith as a positive value.
 

Spirit of Light

Be who ever you want
Scientific knowledge is objective (doesn't depend on the observer), reproducible (the experiments that led to the knowledge can be repeated) and falsifiable (an experiment that leads to a different solution invalidate, or more often, expands on, the theory).
How does spiritual knowledge fare under these criteria?
If you don't value objectivity, reproducibility and falsifiability, what are your preferred criteria for knowledge?
Wisdom aquired during spiritual practice often spiritual teaching.
 

mikkel_the_dane

My own religion
...

But what we KNOW is that humans and human intuition are very, very poor at finding general truths. We make mistakes. We adhere to ideas that comfort us. We get egos involved. And that means that any ideas *need* to be challenged in a way that is precisely counter to the concept of faith as a positive value.

That includes some a-religious general truths and not just religious ones.
 

mikkel_the_dane

My own religion
I don't understand how those are criteria.

All criteria chosen for the world are chosen subjectively. Now as your side is apt at pointing out for the objective you should rely on objective criteria or you might die or hurt yourself. But you can't live only based on objective criteria.
 

Heyo

Veteran Member
All criteria chosen for the world are chosen subjectively. Now as your side is apt at pointing out for the objective you should rely on objective criteria or you might die or hurt yourself. But you can't live only based on objective criteria.
Stop reading things into my posts that aren't there. I didn't ask for objective criteria, I asked for criteria.
 

mikkel_the_dane

My own religion
Stop reading things into my posts that aren't there. I didn't ask for objective criteria, I asked for criteria.

The criteria for me being spiritual and my understanding of the spiritual practice and teaching are mine. So with all other humans.
 

Spirit of Light

Be who ever you want
F = m * a
I = V / R
e = m * c²

Examples of scientific knowledge.

What are examples of spiritual knowledge (that is true and useful)?
What is true and useful to you in spiritual teaching? Guess you will say spiritual teaching is not true or useful.......not so easy to have a serioues conversation then.
 

A Vestigial Mote

Well-Known Member
But how does that make it more valuable? And please only use science! Or admit that valuable is subjective!
Value is entirely subjective, yes. However, there are easy questions that can get to the heart of the matter at hand here:

Which would you rather have if the plane you were on just crashed on a snowy mountain and you were the sole survivor?
  1. The Bible
  2. A snowsuit
You see, "religion" and "spirituality" are all well and good while you have the time on your hands, and the privilege to be lazy with your life and make frivolous choices to do things you wouldn't do if you were in a balls-to-the-wall survival situation. It's like entertainment. No one chooses to watch a movie when they are starving to death and its between watching a movie and dying, or going out to forage/hunt.

The (relative) objectivity of "science" is like that thing you need - you are getting down to the fundamentals, and reaching understanding of what you can truly do with the reality you are presented. Religion or spirituality are far less necessary, and are like fun stories that might help relieve stress and give you a sense of security in knowledge you don't actually possess in the way that you do when you learn things through observation and experimentation.
 
Top